To:LEON TYSZKA

Published:First published in 1964 inCollected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed., Vol. 47.

      Sent from Geneva to Berlin.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1977],

      Moscow,Volume 43,

      pages187-188.Translated:Martin Parker and Bernard IsaacsTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

DearComrade,

YesterdayKon paid me a visit and showed me your telegram to him, and
complained angrily, irritably about its impermissibly sharp, “police”
tone, which he said he could least of all forgive you who are well versed
in the nuances of the German language. I believe I should give you an
account of this characteristic talk with Kon. I replied of course that I
did not know what the neue
			       Wendung[1]was, but that I was certain that you would not have sent such a telegram
without good reason, and that to accuse Alexinsky, and the more so
yourself, of wishing to
			  entgegenarbeiten[2]the investigation was more than
ludicrous.[5]

Kontold me—in confidence (not from you, of course)—that there is
serious evidence against Litvinov, that he, Kon knows Litvinov well and
would not wish to make life hell for him or to take steps that would have
very serious consequences for him; no, but that he, Kon, merely considers
it absolutely necessary to show Europe (and especially the German
Social-Democrats) that trial by the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party
is not a fiction and that the Party can vindicate itself. “Surely a way
can be found to do this without making life hell for anyone!” Kon
exclaimed. I, of course, said that in my opinion this could be done and
that there was no need for him to worry. There would be a hearing under all
circumstances, the Party would see to that, so why worry? It would be a
scandal, said Kon, if Alexinsky were to prevent a hearing. Nonsense, I
said. Alexinskydoes not wantto prevent a hearingnor can
he. There alreadyisa scandal, and it is theMenshevikswho are making it: see the article “Time To Stop” inGolos Sotsial-DemokrataNo. 1–2, I
said.[6]Kon hadn’t read it!!Think of it: while the
investigationis still going on, while Litvinov’s lips are sealed,
while the documents of theinvestigationcannotyet be published, the newspaper pours out
abuse anonymously! Think of Litvinov’s position!! Yet this newspaper isactually the organof the Central Bureau
Abroad,[7]nourished by it. And these are the judges??! That is how I
explained Alexinsky’s behaviour to Kon. To avoid any misunderstanding and
false rumours I consider it necessary to pass this on to you. For however
surprised I was that Kon should have cometo me, the fact remains
that he did. And I am afraid that as a representative of theGermanparty in the Central Bureau Abroad he might misquote me. I
do not think we can rely onthis sortof a reporter to speak on
Russian affairs before the
			       Vorstand[3]of the German party. It is essential that you personally as a member of the
supreme collegium should speak with the Vorstand andwithout failtranslate them the article in No. 1–2 ofGolos
Sotsial-Demokrata. Other wise such absurdities offensive to me as
Kon’s coming to “complain” to me that Alexinsky is working against the
hearing are bound to occur. There is a limit to every thing....

Bestregards,Yours,V. Ulyanov

P.S.Be sure to replyat onceas to whether you will permit
the
			       article[4]I sent you to be printed in Russian inProletary(with the
reservation that it was written forPrzegld
Socjaldemokratyczny) andwhen. We arefrightfully
shortof copy forProletary, and I am impatiently awaiting
your
reply.[8]

P.P.S.After coming to me, Kon saw Ryadovoi, and, I believe; hinted to
him that he had after all privately shown his friends the Mensheviks the
record which you forbade to be
shown.[9]What the devil is this!

[1]Newturn.—Ed.

[2]Towork against.—Ed.

[3]ExecutiveCommittee.—Ed.

[4]Areference to the article “The Assessment of the Russian Revolution”
(see present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 50–62).—Ed.

[5]Areference to the inquiry undertaken by the Party into the slanderous
accusations levelled by the Mensheviks against M. M. Litvinov in connection
with the changing abroad of banknotes seized in the Tiflis expropriation
organised by Kamo (see Note 127). Leon Tyszka was a member of the
investigation commission at the initial stage of the inquiry. Later the
investigation was conducted by the Central Bureau Abroad, but owing to the
indiscreet behaviour of Bureau members, the matter was taken out of its
hands by decision of the August 1908 plenary meeting of the C.C.,
R.S.D.L.P., and handed over to a special C.C. commission of five members,
one each from the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and the national organisations.

[6]Aneditorial article containing slanderous accusations against the
Bolsheviks in connection with the Tiflis expropriation.

GolosSotsial-Demokrata(Voice of the Social-Democrat)—a
Menshevik organ published abroad from February 1908 to December 1911, first
in Geneva, then in Paris. In May 1909 it finally crystallised as the
ideological centre of the liquidators.

[7]CentralBureau Abroad, the centre of all R.S.D.L.P. promotion
groups abroad, was at the time in the hands of the Mensheviks. In August
1908 a plenary meeting of the C.C., R.S.D.L.P., adopt ed a general decision
on the promotion groups and the functions and organisational status of the
Central Bureau Abroad. The Bureau consisted of 10 members appointed by the
C.C. (including one C.C. member with veto right), and its activities were
confined to attending to the needs of the promotion groups abroad and
carrying out general Party assignments given it by the R.S.D.L.P. Central
Committee Bureau Abroad.

[8]Thearticle “The Assessment of the Russian Revolution” was print ed
inProletaryNo. 30, May 23 (10), 1908.

PrzeglqdSocjaldemokratyczny(Social-Democratic Review)—a
journal published by the Polish Social-Democrats in Cracow in 1902–04 and
1908–10.

[9]Evidentlya reference to the record of M. M. Litvinov’s
testimony. Litvinov lodged a protest with the C.C., R.S.D.L.P., on
March 10, 1908, against the banding of his testimony over to the Central
Bureau Abroad. Leon Tyszka, assuming that the C.C. would discuss the
protest, had warned F. Kon that the matter was to be kept confidential.